Bulletin Letter - April 2008

S.O.U.L.

(Save Our Unique Landmark)

16 Sunningdale Road, Wallasey, Wirral, CH45 OLU

April 2008

Interim Report

Dear Parishioners,

In recent weeks some people have questioned the right of S.O.U.L. to speak for the parishioners of SS Peter & Paul!

S.O.U.L. was established by the vote of a majority of those who chose to attend the meeting open to all parishioners held in the Hollins Hey Hotel, on 30th of June 07. S.O.U.L. has never claimed to speak for all the parishioners of SS P&P, but does claim the right to question the actions of the diocesan trustees when they relate directly to the parish and church.  Every parishioner has that right!  Diocesan trustees do not fall within the Church's doctrine on Infallibility. Furthermore, it is a moral duty to question the actions of the trustees when, as now, we believe their actions to be detrimental to our parish's best interests or when they would seem to infringe our rights as parishioners under Canon Law.

We also believe that the diocesan trustees have a duty to explain their actions and decisions in an open and transparent manner and to produce evidence to support them, when such evidence is reasonably required to establish the true facts of a given situation.

It is our sincere belief that the actions of the trustees since the first announcement of the parish "Consultation" in Feb 2007 not only contradict the wishes of parishioners expressed in that "Consultation", but support the opinion that they had already decided to close the church.

The whole manner in which the so called consultation was organised and implemented has frustrated any attempts on the part of parishioners to obtain the true facts of the situation they have found themselves in. A neutral observer might ask why and how the trustees have allowed such a situation to arise.

The members of S.O.U.L. now believe that the trustees took a decision, circa 1998, to impose a moratorium on repairs to SS P&P church, with the exception of those repairs or alterations required in order to comply with the Health and Safety at Work Act (1974) and the Disability Discrimination Act (1995). Furthermore, the trustees did not inform parishioners of this crucial decision and its implications for the future well being of their main parish asset, the church! Lack of basic maintenance for any building will inevitably accelerate decay and require greater expense in future restoration.

All the time the moratorium was in place, parishioners continued to make their generous contributions to their parish and diocese; the diocese continued to recover the tax from gift aid while the church was allowed to crumble over the heads of those same generous parishioners.

It is over six months since S.O.U.L. requested the trustees to provide the audit paper trails that support the decisions to (a) impose the moratorium on repairs, and (b) close the church. So far they have failed to comply with our request. The audit paper trails are, we believe, required under both Trust and Canon Law.  Publication of these documents would help answer many of the questions remaining over the actions of the trustees.

The members of S.O.U.L. have tried to act in an honourable way in our attempts to establish the facts. Our actions are on the record and we are fully prepared to defend those actions.

Since we have been in existence, S.O.U.L. has been trying very hard to establish and conduct a reasonable dialogue with the trustees. We even requested His Eminence Cardinal  Murphy-O'Connor to help us in this endeavour.  Following our letter to the Cardinal, the Vicar General, (VG) Mgr John McManus held a number of meetings with S.O.U.L. but could not answer the question that was important for S.O.U.L: was the diocesan statement that the closure of the church was "irrevocable" still the policy? Bishop Noble was at that time still refusing to meet with S.O.U.L.

Only after engaging a canon law solicitor, at considerable expense, did we obtain a face to face meeting with our Bishop. When asked by S.O.U.L. representatives at that meeting held on Tues 18th Dec 2007 Bishop Noble told those present that the original statement that "The closure of SS P&P was irrevocable" was in point of fact "just a statement of intent" S.O.U.L. took this to mean that the trustees were prepared to negotiate on the principal issue between us. Those attending the meeting felt that real progress had been made especially when, shortly after, the VG asked for a further meeting. You can imagine our feelings when, just a few days later, we received by post from an anonymous source the minutes of the meeting of the Diocesan Council of Priests held on the 6th Nov 2007, six weeks prior to our meeting with Bishop Noble, at which the trustees had put a proposal to the priests, that SS P&P be closed. The proposal had been carried unanimously after the trustees had informed the meeting that insufficient money was available for repairs and that there had been a big reduction in Mass attendance! (Note that this reduction has  happened since the clustering of parishes and the changing of mass times.) No mention of this crucial development was made to our members during their meeting!

In the mean time, acting on the advice of the VG, S.O.U.L. arranged a meeting with Fr Feeney to take place at his presbytery on the 4th Feb 08 at 6pm. When the designated members arrived, they were unable to get an answer despite trying for thirty-five minutes.  Two days later, following the Ash Wednesday service, the designated members approached Fr Feeney in the sacristy. They offered Fr Feeney the re-ordering plans they had intended to discuss with him.  Fr Feeney told them he was not able to discuss anything with them and declined to say why!  Our members again contacted the VG, who just repeated that we must talk with Fr Feeney. The resulting stalemate continues preventing us appealing to the Historic Churches Committee.

The failure of Bishop Noble to mention the decision taken by the Diocesan Council of Priests, together with the unapproachable stance of Fr Feeney and the continued detached response of Mgr McManus seems to members of S.O.U.L. to raise questions about their declared intention to consider our proposals for the re-ordering of the rear of SS P&P.  - Option 1 on the Options Paper.

S.O.U.L. decided, in view of the entrenched attitude of the trustees, to circulate to all the clergy of the diocese our reply to a letter from Bishop Noble. We realised that this action broke the normal conventions, but felt the need to inform the clergy of the manner in which the trustees were conducting their relationship with S.O.U.L.

S.O.U.L. is currently involved in serious dialogue with The Charity Commission about issues relating to the proposed closure of our church.

If current rumours are to be believed, we are about to move out of the beloved home we own, to become lodgers in a non-catholic place of worship. Why would anyone wish to exchange our beautiful Italian Marble Altars for a reformation table? In the last eighteen months we have witnessed the reform of our Mass, the removal of our confessional and now it would seem we are about to lose the Stations of the Cross, our statues and most importantly the Real Presence of the Sacrament?

S.O.U.L. Fighting for our Faith?  You bet we are! 

Like Pope Benedict XVI, we are loyal Catholics.

N.B. The rumours have now been substantiated, viz;  "The discussions we are having with the other denomination look set to guarantee the future of All Saints as a place of worship for the long term future."  (Jeff Staples, Vicar's Report.  All Saints Annual Parochial Church Meeting 13th April 2008)

"There is light on the horizon, a church of another denomination has put forward the proposal to share our church."  (Wardens' Report. All Saints Annual Parochial Church Meeting 13th April 2008)

Fr Feeney has actively discouraged discussion or communication on the future of our parish church.          

But it seems the diocese is willing to secretly discuss and determine our destiny with outsiders.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 2008

SS Peter & Paul, New Brighton.                      

    A Brief Synopsis of Events                          

Bishop Brian

• 1. When the Cluster was initially proposed, Bishop Brian bluntly refused Parishioners' pleas to reconsider alternative views, that SS P & P be linked with St Alban's or St Joseph's.
• 2. Has previously described our Church as "this barn of a place"
• 3. Had stated that the status quo was not an option, but no explanation given.
• 4. With regard to the Options Paper, Bishop Brian states that "Consultation" does not mean "Consensus".
• 5. Bishop Brian had declined to meet with Parishioners or members of S.O.U.L. He eventually agreed to meet representatives as a result of a letter sent on our behalf by a company of solicitors who specialised in Canon Law.
• 6. At the meeting held on Tues: 18th Dec: 2007 Bishop Noble told those present that his original statement that "The closure of SS P&P was irrevocable" was in point of fact "just a statement of intent"
• 7. At a subsequent meeting with the Vicar General we were told that our proposals for the re-ordering of the Church were "on the table" and that we would need to put more detailed proposals to the Trustees.
• 8. This would necessitate putting the proposals to the Historic Churches Committee, which must be done through the Parish Priest. [See Fr Feeney (7) and (8)]

Trustees

• 1. Trust Deed 19/9/63
• 2. Objects: THE ADVANCEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF SHREWSBURY
• 3. Gift Aid is identified as a Parish Scheme
• 4. The Diocesan Yearbook states that; "The role of the Director of Planned Giving and Gift Aid Service is.. . to provide a service to Parishes, Schools and Organisations of the Diocese to assist them in obtaining the income necessary for them to carry out their work".
• 5. PARISH GIFT AID SCHEMES. Gift Aid enables Parishes to reclaim tax on donations already made, etc".

6. Trustees' plans will contradict the Objects of Trust; Advancement of RC Faith

Ownership

• 1. Traditionally, the Church and all the Parish assets and artefacts have been paid for by Parishioners and/or by local benefactors. Each Parish has had to funds its own resources.
• 2. When Bishop Gray introduced central banking, he specifically stated that local control of funds remained with the Parish. [Confirmed by Mgr McManus on 13th Nov 2007]
• 3. Central accounting was essentially implemented to save some Parishes paying punitive interest rates on loans to fund their activities, whilst other Parishes held substantial funds in bank accounts receiving minimal income. With central accounting, interest is neither paid nor received by any Parish whether borrowing or lending.
• 4. In the recent problems within Lancaster Diocese, the Vatican further pronounced that funds held by the Diocese in central accounts on behalf of Parishes still belonged to the individual Parishes for their exclusive use.
• 5. The Parish Church and all Parish assets therefore belong to the Parish, and should be administered by the Trustees on behalf of Parishioners.

Bias

• 1. The original Green Paper (2000)set up by Bishop Gray recommended a feasibility study to advise on "alternative uses within the present Church building."
• 2. The Feasibility Study (2003), recommended either convert internal areas of the Church to accommodate social space and provide school usage, or sell the Church to a developer and build an multi purpose building.. Parts of the Report are considered as misleading:
• 3. It indicated that in the particular year the Parish had made a financial loss. In fact a sum of f30k of surplus Parish funds had been transferred into its Diocesan Account.
• 4. The Report also made a suggestion that the structure of the Church building was suspect.
• 5. [NB: Under pressure from S.O.U.L. a professional - independent - structural survey was undertaken. This established that the structure was in good condition]
• 6. The OPTIONS PAPER was prepared by Fr Feeney, and consisted in the main of his personal views and preferences. [It is well-known that his predecessor, would not have supported those views or preferences.]

Diocese

• 1. A letter from Bishop Brian dated 30th April 2007, states " will close in two years time. No further statement will be issued."
• 2. It transpires that instruction from the Diocesan Trustees has been given some years earlier (as far back as 1998) that no maintenance work was to be carried out on the Church building.
• 3. Parishioners were not made aware of this instruction, and continued to make contributions, including those under Gift Aid, in the belief they were contributing to the upkeep of the Parish, including the Church building.
• 4. In spite of the withdrawal of maintenance, the Diocese kept claiming income tax on the Gift Aided contributions, even thought there was no intention to carry out maintenance using the funds thus contributed.
• 5. At a Diocesan meeting of clergy, a previous Parish Priest had declined a Parish "Gift Aid" campaign because the Diocese was refusing to spend money where it is was needed and for which it had been given. There was already a large Parish fund.

Council of Priests

• 1. The Diocesan Council of Priests is to be consulted before closure of any Parish or Church..
• 2. A copy of the Minutes of the Council of Priests approving the closure of SS Peter and Paul was sent to S.O.U.L. This meeting took place on 6th November 2007, six months after the notice of closure was issued by the Bishop.
• 3. Further, the information presented to the Council of Priests for its deliberations were the lower attendances resulting from the cluster, and a statement that funds were not available.

Fr Feeney

• 1. Our difference of opinion is not with Fr Feeney but with his actions and inactions. It is not a personal difference; it is objective.
• 2. Members of S.O.U.L. are not the only Parishioners uncomfortable with the additions and omissions to the celebration of the Holy Eucharist.
• 3. The promised review of Mass times around the cluster did not happen.
• 4. SS P & P is still without its family-friendly Mass.
• 5. Attendances continue to decline. Offertory and Donations show a drop of 34%
• 6. The accounts for 2007 show (for the first time) a deficit of £6,023, compared with a surplus of £43,068 in 2006. A bill of £13k, which Fr Wentworth had refused to pay due to faulty workmanship, has now been paid without the faulty workmanship being corrected. [During the 12 years to 2006 the average annual Parish surplus was £33,628 pa.]
• 7. On the recommendation of the Vicar General a meeting with Fr Feeney was arranged to discuss among other items the proposals for re-ordering of the Church. This meeting was cancelled, without any reason being given. A request for a further meeting date was refused, even though the Vicar General has subsequently insisted we must speak with Fr Feeney. We consider this to be willful obstruction of the Option process. [See Bishop Brian (8]
• 8. We invite Fr Feeney to reconvene the meeting and to allow the correct process of communication with the Historic Churches Committee to proceed.
• 9. Of the responses to the Options Paper that were not ‘binned' the majority, 57% voted in favour of Option1, retention of the Church with some form of re-ordering for Parish, community and school use.. 26% voted for a new-build Church, and 17% voted to share with other Christian communities and/or other ideas.
• 10. It is the last, and least favoured, option which is being actively pursued by the Diocese. The most favoured, retention of the Church, is being wilfully obstructed.

Parishioners

• 1. On three previous occasions, groups of Parishioners have put forward proposals for social facilities to clergy and the Diocese. On each occasion they have been ignored.
• 2. When the first indications of change were put forward following Fr Wentworth's retirement, a purposeful plea from the majority of Parishioners was made to Bishop Brian for a link to either St Alban's or St Joseph's. This plea was declined.
• 3. Parishioners were not advised when maintenance was covertly withdrawn, and faithfully kept making contributions for the upkeep and repair of their Church.
• 4. Parishioners are the innocent party, especially those who regularly live out their faith both spiritually and in practise.
• 5. Parishioners' views have been sought; and then totally ignored
• 6. The Diocese's plans cannot be considered Christ-centred or mindful of the faithful. They will not achieve the Objects of the Trust; the advancement and maintenance of the RC Faith. They are driven by purely financial objectives.